Tech.ppt2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Tech.ppt2

on

  • 1,102 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,102
Views on SlideShare
1,102
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
97
Comments
1

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • how to download this documentation
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Tech.ppt2 Tech.ppt2 Document Transcript

    • BRAIN FINGERPRINTING A SEMINAR REPORT Submitted by AWDHESH KUMAR in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree of BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY in COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING SCHOOL OF ENGINEERINGCOCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY KOCHI- 682022 OCTOBER 2010
    • Division of Computer Engineering School of EngineeringCochin University of Science & Technology Kochi-682022 CERTIFICATE Certified that this is a bonafide record of the seminar work titled Brain Fingerprinting Done by Awdhesh Kumar of VII semester Computer Science & Engineering in the year 2010 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of Degree of Bachelor of Technology in Computer Science & Engineering of Cochin University of Science & Technology. Dr.David Peter S Mr. V. Damodaran Head of the Division Seminar Guide
    • ACKNOWLEDGEMENTAt the outset, I thank God almighty for making my endeavor a success. I amindebted to my respected teachers and supporting staffs of Division ofComputer Engineering for providing as my inspiration and guidance for myseminar.I am grateful to Dr. David Peter S., Head of Division of Computer Engineeringfor giving such an opportunity to utilize all resources needed for the seminar.I am highly obliged to my guide Mr. V. Damodaran and seminar coordinatorMr. Sudheep Elayidom M. for their valuable instructions, guidance andcorrections in my seminar and its presentation.I also want to express sincere gratitude to all friends for their support andencouragement during the seminar presentation and their active participation inquestioning session for the success of the seminar.
    • ABSTRACT Brain fingerprinting is based on finding that the brain generates aunique brain wave pattern when a person encounters a familiar stimulus Use offunctional magnetic resonance imaging in lie detection derives from studiessuggesting that persons asked to lie show different patterns of brain activity thanthey do when being truthful. Issues related to the use of such evidence in courtsare discussed. The author concludes that neither approach is currently supportedby enough data regarding its accuracy in detecting deception to warrant use incourt. In the field of criminology, a new lie detector has been developedin the United States of America. This is called “brain fingerprinting”. Thisinvention is supposed to be the best lie detector available as on date and is saidto detect even smooth criminals who pass the polygraph test (the conventionallie detector test) with ease. The new method employs brain waves, which areuseful in detecting whether the person subjected to the test, remembers finerdetails of the crime. Even if the person willingly suppresses the necessaryinformation, the brain wave is sure to trap him, according to the experts, whoare very excited about the new kid on the block.
    • TABLE OF CONTENTS1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. DEFINITION 1.2. TECHNIQUE2. ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY 6 2.1. SOURCES OF EEG ACTIVITIES 2.2. EEG Vs FMRI & PET 2.3. METHOD3. ROLE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 10 3.1. PHASE 1: INVESTIGATION 3.2. PHASE 2: INTERVIEW OF THE SUBJECT 3.3. PHASE 3: SCIENTIFIC TESTING 3.4. PHASE4: ADJUDICATION4. ROLE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 155. CURRENT USES AND APPLICATION 18 5.1 COUNTER TERRORISM 5.2 CRIMINAL JUSTICE 5.3 MEDICAL FIELD 5.4. ADVERTISING APPLICATIONS 5.5. OTHER APPLICATIONS6. LIMITATIONS 237. CONCLUSIONS 26 REFERENCES 27
    • Brain Fingerprinting CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Brain Fingerprinting is a controversial proposed investigative techniquethat measures recognition of familiar stimuli by measuring electrical brain waveresponses to words, phrases, or pictures that are presented on a computer screen.Brain fingerprinting was invented by Lawrence Farwell. The theory is that thesuspects reaction to the details of an event or activity will reflect if the suspecthad prior knowledge of the event or activity. This test uses what Farwell callsthe MERMER ("Memory and Encoding Related MultifacetedElectroencephalographic Response") response to detect familiarity reaction.One of the applications is lie detection. Dr. Lawrence A. Farwell has invented,developed, proven, and patented the technique of Farwell Brain Fingerprinting,a new computer-based technology to identify the perpetrator of a crimeaccurately and scientifically by measuring brain-wave responses to crime-relevant words or pictures presented on a computer screen. Farwell BrainFingerprinting has proven 100% accurate in over 120 tests, including tests onFBI agents, tests for a US intelligence agency and for the US Navy, and tests onreal-life situations including actual crimes.1.1 DEFINITION: Brain Fingerprinting is designed to determine whether an individualrecognizes specific information related to an event or activity by measuringelectrical brain wave responses to words, phrases, or pictures presented on acomputer screen. The technique can be applied only in situations whereinvestigators have a sufficient amount of specific information about an event orDivision of Computer Engineering, SOE 3
    • Brain Fingerprintingactivity that would be known only to the perpetrator and Investigator. In thisrespect, Brain Fingerprinting is considered a type of Guilty KnowledgeTest, where the "guilty" party is expected to react strongly to the relevant detailof the event of activity. Existing (polygraph) procedures for assessing the validity of asuspects "guilty" knowledge rely on measurement of autonomic arousal (e.g.,palm sweating and heart rate), while Brain Fingerprinting measures electricalbrain activity via a fitted headband containing special sensors. Fig. 1.1 Waves to detect guiltBrain Fingerprinting is said to be more accurate in detecting "guilty" knowledgedistinct from the false positives of traditional polygraph methods, but this ishotly disputed by specialized researchers.Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 4
    • Brain Fingerprinting1.2 TECHNIQUE: The person to be tested wears a special headband with electronicsensors that measure the electroencephalography from several locations on thescalp. In order to calibrate the brain fingerprinting system, the testee ispresented with a series of irrelevant stimuli, words, and pictures, and a series ofrelevant stimuli, words, and pictures. The test subjects brain response to thesetwo different types of stimuli allow the testor to determine if the measured brainresponses to test stimuli, called probes, are more similar to the relevant orirrelevant responses. The technique uses the well known fact that an electrical signalknown as P300 is emitted from an individuals brain approximately 300milliseconds after it is confronted with a stimulus of special significance, e.g. arare vs. a common stimuls or a stimulus the proband is asked to count. Thenovel interpretation in brain fingerprinting is to look for P300 as response tostimuli related to the crime in question e.g., a murder weapon or a victims face.Because it is based on EEG signals, the system does not require the testee toissue verbal responses to questions or stimuli. Brain fingerprinting uses cognitive brain responses, brain fingerprinting does not depend on the emotions of the subject, nor is it affected byemotional responses. Brain fingerprinting is fundamentally different from thepolygraph (lie-detector), which measures emotion-based physiological signalssuch as heart rate, sweating, and blood pressure. Also, unlike polygraph testing,it does not attempt to determine whether or not the subject is lying or telling thetruth.Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 5
    • Brain Fingerprinting CHAPTER 2 ELECTROENCEPHALOGRAPHY Electroencephalography (EEG) is the measurement of electricalactivity produced by the brain as recorded from electrodes placed on the scalp.Just as the activity in a computer can be understood on multiple levels, from theactivity of individual transistors to the function of applications, so can theelectrical activity of the brain be described on relatively small to relatively largescales. At one end are action potentials in a single axon or currents within asingle dendrite of a single neuron, and at the other end is the activity measuredby the EEG which aggregates the electric voltage fields from millions ofneurons. So-called scalp EEG is collected from tens to hundreds of electrodespositioned on different locations at the surface of the head. EEG signals (in therange of milli-volts) are amplified and digitalized for later processing. The datameasured by the scalp EEG are used for clinical and research purposes. Fig. 2.1 ElectrographyDivision of Computer Engineering, SOE 6
    • Brain Fingerprinting2.1 SOURCE OF EEG ACTIVITY: Scalp EEG activity oscillates at multiple frequencies havingdifferent characteristic spatial distributions associated with different states ofbrain functioning such as waking and sleeping. These oscillations representsynchronized activity over a network of neurons. The neuronal networksunderlying some of these oscillations are understood (such as thethalamocortical resonance underlying sleep spindles) while many others are not(e.g. the system that generates the posterior basic rhythm). Fig. 2.2 Adaptive noise module2.2 EEG VS FMRI AND PET EEG has several strong sides as a tool of exploring brain activity;for example, its time resolution is very high (on the level of a singleDivision of Computer Engineering, SOE 7
    • Brain Fingerprintingmillisecond). Other methods of looking at brain activity, such as PET and FMRIhave time resolution between seconds and minutes. EEG measures the brains electrical activity directly, while othermethods record changes in blood flow (e.g., SPECT, FMRI) or metabolicactivity (e.g., PET), which are indirect markers of brain electrical activity. EEG can be used simultaneously with FMRI so that high-temporal-resolution data can be recorded at the same time as high-spatial-resolution data,however, since the data derived from each occurs over a different time course,the data sets do not necessarily represent the exact same brain activity. Thereare technical difficulties associated with combining these two modalities likecurrents can be induced in moving EEG electrode wires due to the magneticfield of the MRI. EEG can be recorded at the same time as MEG so that data fromthese complimentary high-time-resolution techniques can be combined.Magneto-encephalography (MEG) is an imaging technique used to measure themagnetic fields produced by electrical activity in the brain via extremelysensitive devices such as superconducting quantum interference devices(SQUIDs). These measurements are commonly used in both research andclinical settings. There are many uses for the MEG, including assisting surgeonsin localizing pathology, assisting researchers in determining the function ofvarious parts of the brain, neuro-feedback, and others.2.3 METHOD: Scalp EEG, the recording is obtained by placing electrodes on thescalp. Each electrode is connected to one input of a differential amplifier and aDivision of Computer Engineering, SOE 8
    • Brain Fingerprintingcommon system reference electrode is connected to the other input of eachdifferential amplifier. These amplifiers amplify the voltage between the activeelectrode and the reference (typically 1,000–100,000 times, or 60–100 dB ofvoltage gain). A typical adult human EEG signal is about 10µV to 100 µV inamplitude when measured from the scalp [2] and is about 10–20 mV whenmeasured from subdural electrodes. In digital EEG systems, the amplified signalis digitized via an analog-to-digital converter, after being passed through ananti-aliasing filter. Since an EEG voltage signal represents a difference betweenthe voltages at two electrodes, the display of the EEG for the readingencephalographer may be set up in one of several ways.Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 9
    • Brain Fingerprinting CHAPTER 3 ROLE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS The application of Brain Fingerprinting testing in a criminal caseinvolves four phases: investigation, interview, scientific testing, andadjudication. Of these four phases, only the third one is in the domain ofscience. The first phase is undertaken by a skilled investigator, the second by aninterviewer who may be an investigator or a scientist, the third by a scientist,and the fourth by a judge and jury. This is similar to the forensic application of other sciences. Forexample, if a person is found dead of unknown causes, first there is aninvestigation to determine if there may have been foul play. If there is a suspectinvolved, the suspect is interviewed to determine what role, if any, he says hehas had in the situation. If the investigation determines that the victim may havebeen poisoned using ricin or cadmium, two rare and powerful poisons, thenscientific tests can be conducted to detect these specific substances in the body.Then the evidence accumulated through the test, the investigation, and theinterview are presented to a judge and jury, who make the adjudication as towhether a particular suspect is guilty of a particular crime. In such a case, thescience of forensic toxicology reveals only whether or not specific toxins are inthe body. It does not tell us when or where to look for toxins, or which toxins tolook for. We must rely on investigation to provide the necessary guidance onthese issues. The science of forensic toxicology also does not tell us whether aparticular suspect is innocent or guilty of a crime. The question of guilt orinnocence is a legal one, not a scientific one, and the adjudication is made by ajudge and jury, and not by a scientist or a computer.Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 10
    • Brain Fingerprinting3.1 PHASE 1: Investigation The first phase in applying Brain Fingerprinting testing in acriminal case is an investigation of the crime. Before a Brain Fingerprinting testcan be applied, an investigation must be undertaken to discover information thatcan be used in the test. The science of Brain Fingerprinting accuratelydetermines whether or not specific information is stored in a specific person‟sbrain. It detects the presence or absence of specific information in the brain.Before we can conduct this scientific test, we need to determine whatinformation to test for. This investigation precedes and informs the scientificphase which constitutes the Brain Fingerprinting test itself. The role ofinvestigation is to find specific information that will be useful in a Brain Fingerprinting testt. As with any scientific test, if the outcome of the BrainFingerprinting test is to be useful evidence for a judge and jury to consider inreaching their verdict, then the information tested must have a bearing on theperpetration of the crime.3.2 PHASE 2: Interview of Subject Once evidence has been accumulated through investigation, andbefore the Brain Fingerprinting test is conducted to determine if the evidencecan be linked to the suspect, it can in some cases be very valuable to obtain thesuspect‟s account of the situation. For example, if an investigation shows thatspecific fingerprints are found at the scene of a murder, a suspect can beinterviewed to determine if there may be some legitimate reason that his printsare there. If the suspect‟s story is that he was never at the scene of the crime,then a match between his fingerprints and the fingerprints at that scene wouldbe highly incriminating. If, on the other hand, the suspect‟s story is that he wasDivision of Computer Engineering, SOE 11
    • Brain Fingerprintingat the scene for some legitimate reason just before the crime, then fingerprintsmust be interpreted differently, particularly if there is corroborating evidence ofthe suspect‟s presence at the scene before the crime. The interview with the suspect may help to determine whichscientific tests to conduct, or how to conduct the tests. For example, a suspectmay say that he entered and then left the room where a murder was committed ashort time before the murder, and that he never saw or handled the murderweapon. In this context, a finding that the suspect‟s fingerprints matched thefingerprints on the doorknob would have little value, but a finding that hisfingerprints matched those on the murder weapon would provide incriminatingevidence. Prior to a Brain Fingerprinting test, an interview of the suspect isconducted. The suspect is asked if he would have any legitimate reason forknowing any of the information that is contained in the potential probe stimuli.This information is described without revealing which stimuli are probes andwhich are irrelevant. For example, the suspect may be asked, “The newspaperreports, which you no doubt have read, say that the victim was struck with ablunt object. Do you have any way of knowing whether that murder weaponwas a baseball bat, a broom handle, or a blackjack?” If the suspect answers“No,” then a test result indicating that his brain does indeed contain a record ofwhich of these is the murder weapon can provide evidence relevant to the case.Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 12
    • Brain Fingerprinting3.3 PHASE 3: Scientific Testing with Brain FingerprintingIt is in the Brain Fingerprinting test where science contributes to the process.Brain Fingerprinting determines scientifically whether or not specificinformation is stored in a specific person‟s brain. Brain Fingerprinting is a standardized scientific procedure. Theinput for this scientific procedure is the probe stimuli, which are formulated onthe basis of the investigation and the interview. The output of this scientificprocedure is a determination of “information present” or “information absent”for those specific probe stimuli, along with a statistical confidence for thisdetermination. This determination is made according to a specific, scientificalgorithm, and does not depend on the subjective judgment of the scientist. Brain Fingerprinting tells us the following, no more and no less:“These specific details about this crime are (or are not) stored in this person‟sbrain.” On the basis of this and all of the other available evidence, a judge andjury make a determination of guilty or innocent.3.4 PHASE 4: Adjudication of Guilt or Innocence The final step in the application of Brain Fingerprinting in legalproceedings is the adjudication of guilt or innocence. This is entirely outside therealm of science. The adjudication of guilt or innocence is the exclusive domainof the judge and jury. It is not the domain of the investigator, or the scientist, orthe computer. It is fundamental to our legal system that decisions of guilt orinnocence are made by human beings, juries of our peers, on the basis of theirhuman judgment and common sense. The question of guilt or innocence is andDivision of Computer Engineering, SOE 13
    • Brain Fingerprintingwill always remain a legal one, and not a scientific one. Science providesevidence, but a judge and jury must weigh the evidence and decide the verdict.Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 14
    • Brain Fingerprinting CHAPTER 4 THE ROLE IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS In legal proceedings, the scope of the science of BrainFingerprinting – and all other sciences – is limited. The role of BrainFingerprinting is to take the output of investigations and interviews regardingwhat information is relevant, to make a scientific determination regarding thepresence or absence of that information in a specific brain, and thus to providethe judge and jury with evidence to aid in their determination of guilt orinnocence of a suspect. As with the other forensic sciences, the science of BrainFingerprinting does not tell us when to run a test, whom to test, or what to testfor. This is determined by the investigator according to his skill and judgment,and evaluated by the judge and jury. Recall the case of the possible murder by poisoning discussedabove. All the science of forensic toxicology tells us is that there is or is notricin or cadmium in specific cadaver. Science does not tell us to look for these specific poisons in thisspecific case. This is determined by the investigator according to his skill andjudgment. Similarly, the science of Brain Fingerprinting does not tell us whatinformation to test for. Again, this information is accumulated by theinvestigator according to his skill and judgment. Brain Fingerprinting tells usscientifically whether or not this specific information is stored in a specificperson‟s brain.Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 15
    • Brain Fingerprinting In the poisoning case mentioned above, science does not tell uswhether a particular suspect is guilty. This is determined by the judge and juryaccording to their human judgment and common sense. The same is true ofBrain Fingerprinting, and every other scientific procedure. Again, the science of Brain Fingerprinting does not tell us if aparticular suspect is guilty or not. Only a judge and jury can make adetermination of guilt or innocence, and they make this determination accordingto their human judgment, taking into account all of the scientific and otherevidence. It is our view that science, whether it be Brain Fingerprinting or anyother science, does not and should not seek to infringe the realm of the judgeand jury in making a determination of guilt or innocence. Fig. 4.1 Wave for guilty Nor is science a substitute for skillful and effective investigation. Sciencedepends on investigation, which is outside the realm of science, to determinewhen to test, whom to test, and what to test. The evidence provided by scienceand by investigation ultimately must be weighed and evaluated by the humanbeings who are the judge and jury, on the basis of their human judgment andcommon sense, in reaching their verdict regarding the guilt or innocence of theaccused.Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 16
    • Brain Fingerprinting It is fundamental to our legal system, and essential to the cause ofjustice, that the judge and jury must be supplied with all of the availableevidence to aid them in reaching their verdict. Brain Fingerprinting providessolid scientific evidence that must be weighed along with other availableevidence by the judge and jury. In our view, it would be a serious miscarriage ofjustice to deny a judge and jury the opportunity to hear and evaluate theevidence provided by the science of Brain Fingerprinting, when available, alongwith all of the other available evidence. In the case of a suspect presenting BrainFingerprinting evidence supporting a claim of innocence, such a denial wouldalso be unconscionable human rights violation. Brain Fingerprinting is not a substitute for the careful deliberationsof a judge and jury. It can play a vital role in informing these deliberations,however, by providing accurate, scientific evidence relevant to the issues athand.Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 17
    • Brain Fingerprinting CHAPTER 5 USES AND APPLICATIONS The various applications are as follows:-1. Test for several forms of employment, especially in dealing with sensitivemilitary and foreign intelligence screening.2. Individuals who were “information present” and “information absent”3. A group of 17 FBI agents and 4 non-agents were exposed to stimuli.4. To detect symptoms of Alzheimers disease, Mental Depression and otherforms of dementia including neurological disorders.5. Criminal cases.6. Advertisements (researches are being carried on).7. Counter-Terrorism.8. Security Testing.5.1 COUNTER TERRORISM: Brain fingerprinting can help address the following criticalelements in the fight against terrorism:1: Aid in determining who has participated in terrorist acts, directly orindirectly.Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 18
    • Brain Fingerprinting2: Aid in identifying trained terrorists with the potential to commit futureterrorist acts, even if they are in a “sleeper” cell and have not been active foryears.3: Help to identify people who have knowledge or training in banking, financeor communications and who are associated with terrorist teams and acts.4: Help to determine if an individual is in a leadership role within a terroristorganization. Brain fingerprinting technology is based on the principle that thebrain is central to all human acts. In a terrorist act, there may or may not beperipheral evidence such as fingerprints or DNA, but the brain of the perpetratoris always there, planning, executing, and recording the crime. The terrorist hasknowledge of organizations, training and plans that an innocent person does nothave. Until the invention of Brain Fingerprinting testing, there was no scientificway to detect this fundamental difference. Brain Fingerprinting testing provides an accurate, economical andtimely solution to the central problem in the fight against terrorism. It is nowpossible to determine scientifically whether or not a person has terrorist trainingand knowledge of terrorist activities. With the Brain Fingerprinting system, a significant scientificbreakthrough has now become a practical applied technology. A new era insecurity and intelligence gathering has begun. Now, terrorists and thosesupporting terrorism can be identified quickly and accurately. No longer shouldany terrorist be able to evade justice for lack of evidence. And there is no reasonwhy an innocent individual should be falsely imprisoned or convicted ofDivision of Computer Engineering, SOE 19
    • Brain Fingerprintingterrorist activity. A Brain Fingerprinting test can determine with an extremelyhigh degree of accuracy those who are involved with terrorist activity and thosewho are not.5.2 CRIMINAL JUSTICE: A critical task of the criminal justice system is to determine who hascommitted a crime. The key difference between a guilty party and an innocentsuspect is that the perpetrator of the crime has a record of the crime stored intheir brain, and the innocent suspect does not. Until the invention of BrainFingerprinting testing, there was no scientifically valid way to detect thisfundamental difference. Brain Fingerprinting testing does not prove guilt or innocence. Thatis the role of a judge and jury. This exciting technology gives the judge and jurynew, scientifically valid evidence to help them arrive at their decision. DNAevidence and fingerprints are available in only about 1% of major crimes. It isestimated that Brain Fingerprinting testing will apply in approximately 60 to70% of these major crimes. The impacts on the criminal justice system will beprofound. The potential now exists to significantly improve the speed andaccuracy of the entire system, from investigations to parole hearings. BrainFingerprinting testing will be able to dramatically reduce the costs associatedwith investigating and prosecuting innocent people and allow law enforcementprofessionals to concentrate on suspects who have verifiable, detailedknowledge of the crimes.5.3 MEDICAL FIELD „Brain Fingerprinting‟ is the patented technology that can measureobjectively, for the first time, how memory and cognitive functioning ofAlzheimer sufferers are affected by medications. First generation tests haveDivision of Computer Engineering, SOE 20
    • Brain Fingerprintingproven to be more accurate than other routinely used tests, and could becommercially available in 18-24 months. Fig. 5.3.1 Medical treatment The 30 minute test involves wearing a headband with built-in electrodes;technicians then present words, phrases and images that are both known andunknown to the patient to determine whether information that should be in thebrain is still there. When presented with familiar information, the brain respondsby producing MERMERs, specific increases in neuron activity. The techniciancan use this response to measure how quickly information is disappearing fromthe brain and whether the drugs they are taking are slowing down the process.5.4 ADVERTISING APPLICATIONS: How do we know what information people retain from a mediacampaign? There is a new technology that allows us to measure scientifically ifspecific information, like a product brand, is retained in a person‟s memory.Brain Fingerprinting testing adds a whole new dimension to the methods ofDivision of Computer Engineering, SOE 21
    • Brain Fingerprintingmeasuring advertising effectiveness, going well beyond subjective surveys andfocus groups. The implications for the advertising Industry are very exciting!5.5 OTHER APPLICATIONS: In advertising, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will offersignificant advances in measuring campaign and media effectiveness. Mostadvertising programs today are evaluated subjectively using focus groups. Wewill be able to offer significantly more advanced, scientific methods to helpdetermine the effectiveness of campaigns and be very cost competitive withcurrent methodologies. This technology will be able to help determine whatinformation is actually retained in memory by individuals. For example, in abranding campaign do people remember the brand, the product, etc. and how dothe results vary with demographics? We will also be able to measure thecomparative effectiveness of multiple media types. In the insurance industry, Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories will beable to help reduce the incidence of insurance fraud by determining if anindividual has knowledge of fraudulent or criminal acts. The same type oftesting can help to determine if an individual has specific knowledge related tocomputer crimes where there is typically no witness or physical evidence.Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 22
    • Brain Fingerprinting CHAPTER 6 LIMITATIONS The limitations of this technique are discussed with examples (incrime scenarios) as follows:1) Brain fingerprinting detects information-processing brain responses thatreveal what information is stored in the subject‟s brain. It does not detect howthat information got there. This fact has implications for how and when thetechnique can be applied. In a case where a suspect claims not to have been atthe crime scene and has no legitimate reason for knowing the details of thecrime and investigators have information that has not been released to thepublic, brain fingerprinting can determine objectively whether or not the subjectpossesses that information. In such a case, brain fingerprinting could provideuseful evidence. If, however, the suspect knows everything that theinvestigators know about the crime for some legitimate reason, then the testcannot be applied. There are several circumstances in which this may be thecase. If a suspect acknowledges being at the scene of the crime, but claims to bea witness and not a perpetrator, then the fact that he knows details about thecrime would not be incriminating. There would be no reason to conduct a test,because the resulting “information present” response would simply show thatthe suspect knew the details about the crime – knowledge which he alreadyadmits and which he gained at the crime scene whether he was a witness or aperpetrator.2) Another case where brain fingerprinting is not applicable would be onewherein a suspect and an alleged victim – say, of an alleged sexual assault –agree on the details of what was said and done, but disagree on the intent of theDivision of Computer Engineering, SOE 23
    • Brain Fingerprintingparties. Brain fingerprinting detects only information, and not intent. The factthat the suspect knows the uncontested facts of the circumstance does not tell uswhich party‟s version of the intent is correct.3) In a case where the suspect knows everything that the investigators knowbecause he has been exposed to all available information in a previous trial,there is no available information with which to construct probe stimuli, so a testcannot be conducted. Even in a case where the suspect knows many of thedetails about the crime, however, it is sometimes possible to discover salientinformation that the perpetrator must have encountered in the course ofcommitting the crime, but the suspect claims not to know and would not knowif he were innocent. This was the case with Terry Harrington. By examiningreports, interviewing witnesses, and visiting the crime scene and surroundingareas, Dr. Farwell was able to discover salient features of the crime thatHarrington had never been exposed to at his previous trials. The brainfingerprinting test showed that the record in Harrington‟s brain did not containthese salient features of the crime, but only the details about the crime that hehad learned after the fact.4) Obviously, in structuring a brain fingerprinting test, a scientist must avoidincluding information that has been made public. Detecting that a suspectknows information he obtained by reading a newspaper would not be of use in acriminal investigation, and standard brain fingerprinting procedures eliminateall such information from the structuring of a test. News accounts containingmany of the details of a crime do not interfere with the development of a brainfingerprinting test, however; they simply limit the material that can be tested.Even in highly publicized cases, there are almost always many details that areknown to the investigators but not released to the public, and these can be usedDivision of Computer Engineering, SOE 24
    • Brain Fingerprintingas stimuli to test the subject for knowledge that he would have no way to knowexcept by committing the crime.Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 25
    • Brain Fingerprinting CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS Brain Fingerprinting is a revolutionary new scientific technologyfor solving crimes, identifying perpetrators, and exonerating innocent suspects,with a record of 100% accuracy in research with US government agencies,actual criminal cases, and other applications. The technology fulfills an urgentneed for governments, law enforcement agencies, corporations, investigators,crime victims, and falsely accused, innocent suspects.Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 26
    • Brain Fingerprinting REFERENCES1) Farwell LA, Donchin E. The brain detector: P300 in the detection ofdeception. Psychophysiology 1986; 24:434.2) Farwell LA, Donchin E. The truth will out: interrogative polygraphy ("liedetection") with event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology 1991;28:531-541.3)Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for multifacetedelectroencephalographic response analysis (MERA). US patent 5,363,858. 1994Nov 15.4) Farwell LA. Two new twists on the truth detector: brain-wave detection ofoccupational information. Psychophysiology 1992;29(4A):S3.5) Farwell LA, inventor. Method and apparatus for truth detection. US patent5,406,956. 1995 Apr 18.6)Picton TW. Handbook of electroencephalography and clinicalneurophysiology: human event-related potentials. Amsterdam:Division of Computer Engineering, SOE 27